The article I'm about to link to, by Oliver Reichenstein, is pretty terrible, but it's a good way for me to bring up something I've been meaning to talk about. First, the article: "Apple has been working on its file system and with iOS it had almost killed the concept of folders - before reintroducing them with a peculiar restriction: only one level! With Mountain Lion it brings its one folder level logic to OSX. What could be the reason for such a restrictive measure?" So, where does this crusade against directory structures (not file systems, as the article aggravatingly keeps stating) come from?

"The thing that is wrong about directories (from a UI perspective) is that they are location specific taxonomy, and they are exclusive. It is an artificial limitation - it is taking power away from you and making you waste braincells."

Oh you are hopeless, maybe this will help: DIRECTORIES ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO TAGGING AND METADATA!!! You seem to be wilfully ignorant of this fact and every single one of your arguments thus far has relied upon that ignorance to make a case in favour of metadata and against directories. You prefer tagging, fine, however you don't speak for me or anyone else. The big pile approach is a regression for millions of users and professionals. It's an arbitrary decree that computers shouldn't enable us to organise our digital files as we would in the physical world, all because you can't spare the brain power.

"Im just saying why not let your computer keep things organized for you? That way you can, I don't know, go do real work."

To the extent that works, then sure, but nobody here has argued against that.

If a user uses a device to download music and movies, then metatags should work great. No user brain cells wasted here. Though it is still not an argument against *allowing* for directories. Permitting both is a simple solution that works for everyone, there's no reason to get authoritarian over how other users choose to work.